Let's stir it up some...

[Red Robin]

Rod, there's a lot of truth in what you say. However, I'm thinking the pendulum is starting to swing away from "cheap". Certain things always hold true, and "you can't get something for nothing" is one of them. If you're getting ground on price, you have to be giving ground on quality, safety, something, and I think consumers are beginning to see that. We need to make sure they do.

Unfortunately Sandhusker, in the case of South American beef, where they 'give' is on input costs not quality or safety. Some may even say the SA beef is safer due to it being grass fed with no ruminant by-products.

Ditto the Asian markets at least insofar as input costs. Workers wages are measured in cents or dollars per week. Its impossible to compete with markets like that when our workers wages are measured in dollars/hour.

I've always been a huge supporter of free trade, but only between countries whose workers' wages/living conditions were at least somewhat close to being at par. Unfortunately our respective governments don't see it that way.

Rod

Once the large packers go to South America though gentlemen, it won't be long before they destroy the beef industry , like you say they have done here. Right? Why worry?

 

[Texan]

Do any of you have an opinion about Consolidated Beef Producers? I think it's a good idea that helps feeders and their customers level the playing field somewhat when it comes to marketing.

But some of the rest of you might be opposed to them because a lot of the management are ex-packer employees and because so many of the "big Texas feeders" are members.

Any comments about CBP?



Consolidated Beef Producers is continually focusing on contributing to a more effective and efficient beef production and marketing system. From marketing fed cattle to creating outlets for every ounce of beef we market. Through partnerships and key alignments within the meat sector, CBP is creating unique and new marketing opportunities that will benefit everyone within our industry.

CBP was formed in 2000 by a group of visionaries that could see the need to create a consolidated marketing service for their feedyards. With increased consolidation of fed cattle buying, they began to experience less control of weekly marketings. By forming CBP, a vessel was set sail in waters that had never been chartered, a new concept was born. This concept would come to benefit the cattle market and hundreds of cattle feeders across the country within just a few short years.

Today, CBP currently markets over 1 million cattle a year. CBP is actively creating new marketing opportunities for its 230 custom feedlots and their customers. From providing retailers a product that is empowered with consumer driven attributes to filling international orders with requirements that are above and beyond the expectations for U.S. beef...

http://www.consolidatedbeef.com/index.html

 

[Mike]

Once the large packers go to South America though gentlemen, it won't be long before they destroy the beef industry , like you say they have done here. Right? Why worry?

With all due respect, it won't be the packers alone that destroy the beef industry for the producer, when "Top-Down" V.I. takes hold......it will be the guys just like you who contribute also......by getting yourself some "security"......you will shoot yourself in the foot.

You can't blame the packers for wanting to control each and every facet of the game.
They are in it for the money, and the money alone..............

 

[Red Robin]

Once the large packers go to South America though gentlemen, it won't be long before they destroy the beef industry , like you say they have done here. Right? Why worry?

With all due respect, it won't be the packers alone that destroy the beef industry for the producer, when "Top-Down" V.I. takes hold......it will be the guys just like you who contribute also......by getting yourself some "security"......you will shoot yourself in the foot.

You can't blame the packers for wanting to control each and every facet of the game.
They are in it for the money, and the money alone..............

Mike, my comment was directed at the south american beef industry. You fellas say they have destroyed our beef industry here, now they'll go destroy the beef industry there and put us in a better position? Correct?

 

[Ben Roberts]

Texan, what part do you play in CBP?

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Mike]

Once the large packers go to South America though gentlemen, it won't be long before they destroy the beef industry , like you say they have done here. Right? Why worry?

With all due respect, it won't be the packers alone that destroy the beef industry for the producer, when "Top-Down" V.I. takes hold......it will be the guys just like you who contribute also......by getting yourself some "security"......you will shoot yourself in the foot.

You can't blame the packers for wanting to control each and every facet of the game.
They are in it for the money, and the money alone..............

Mike, my comment was directed at the south american beef industry. You fellas say they have destroyed our beef industry here, now they'll go destroy the beef industry there and put us in a better position? Correct?

I don't understand how the revamping and gaining total control over the SA beef industry will put us in a better position? Better position over what and where? With whom?

V.I. is merely a copy of the old English "Feudal" system that benefits no one but the big guy.

Ever talk to any of the "Old Time" sharecroppers from the 20's and 30's? You need to find one, sit down and have a long talk with him someday before they die out.
I've had many of them tell me that there was no way to get ahead when you're working for "The Man".

 

[Econ101]

RR, the packers will destroy the little producers with their VI and maybe, if we let them, with their international supplies.

If the packers own the production system in Latin America, or control it, they will be putting the squeeze on the Latin American (or wherever in the world) producers. They will have all the profit just as they have in the poultry industry in the U.S. today. Do you really think you can compete with them and their "cheap land"? Already they have made big inroads in owning the profits in those countries and they can use that model to compete with the U.S. producers----if we let them. It is a little disingenuous for the politicians to yell "free trade" when it entails the subjucation of another country's resources"free trade" that allows them to sell make profits on those resources from U.S. consumers. If you want to create more enemies around the world, just allow U.S. companies to control the resources of those countries backed with the U.S. military that we all pay for.

None of this inevitable---unless Americans give up on these big business scams of controlling the resources around the world. They are profiting by controlling these foreign resources and selling in the U.S. their products while undercutting domestic producers.

If you want to roll over and let them do this, well, I guess the battle with you is already won.

If we truly wanted the benefits of "free trade" to reach the rest of the world, we will have to export the idea of a vibrant middle class to those countries so the population will have money to buy our products. Most of these countries do not have a middle class, no social structure for their people, and not enough environmental laws to protect their environment or the food that comes in from those countries.

Do you really think that allowing "free trade" that arbitrages these differences and benefits only a few helps build economies? You have only to look at Mexico (NAFTA and Mexico) and other recent trade deals the administration has given.

If we don't export the ideas that have made our country great, do you thing the world will end up being a better place?

Just look what a cheap food policy has done to rural America. For the most part, it has devastated it.

 

[rider]

Here we go again talking about cost.

Nothing in this world is free.

The only thing free is the saving grace of God.

 

[Sandhusker]

Econ is right.

 

[Texan]

Texan, what part do you play in CBP?

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

I'm not a member of CBP, Ben.

 

[Ben Roberts]

Texan, I have some reservations about CBP because Castus Feeders and Contibeef are members, although CBP dosen't market any cattle for Cactus Feeders, I have to wonder why Paul Engler is a member. I know several of the members and some of the directors though, and would like to believe that Consolidated Beef Producers could be, just maybe, the organization cattle producers could get behind and support, for solvency in the cattle industry.

CBP, operates as a cooperative, and with a Canadian organization called Northwest Beef operating very closely the same way, they work together on many, if not all, issues facing the fed cattle business on both sides of the border. I believe cow/calf producers need to take a look at what they are doing. I also believe if the cow/calf producers would set down and talk with CBP we could have a very good workable future. Maybe just maybe.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Texan]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on CBP, Ben. There's some good, small, family-owned feeders on the CBP membership list that I have a lot of faith in - a couple of them that I have known for years. If CBP is truly a one member/one vote organization, I'm not too concerned about Engler/Cactus being a member.

In fact, I'm not all that concerned about Engler, anyway. In my opinion, he's a visionary. He's on the cutting edge of making moves that he feels are best for his business and his customers. I know many people find fault with him for doing that, but I'm not one of them.

All of us should do the same thing that Paul Engler does - we should do what we feel is best for our business. For you and RM, that involves direct selling. For Red Robin, that might involve a VI deal with Smithfield. For others, it might be retained ownership with a grid-based deal with Tyson. For many of the small southern producers, they think the best thing is to carry a few calves to the salebarn right off the cow without ever doing anything to them - no vaccine, no castrating, etc.

But for me, I want the flexibility to choose between ALL of those marketing options. I feel like it's my business how I market my cattle - mine and nobody else's. The fewer laws we have relating to marketing, the better I like it.

 

[RobertMac]

But for me, I want the flexibility to choose between ALL of those marketing options. I feel like it's my business how I market my cattle - mine and nobody else's. The fewer laws we have relating to marketing, the better I like it.

In an ideal capitalistic system, I'm with you on the fewer laws. I may be wrong, but I'll go so far as to say that an ideal capitalistic system is self regulating. What I mean by 'ideal capitalistic system' is one with many options/venders. I don't feel we can ignore the market power of the few when an industry/market concentrates to only a few options/venders. The point I want to make is that if we, as producers, don't support all our options,we loss them...then where is the flexibility you/we cherish?

 

[Jason]

But for me, I want the flexibility to choose between ALL of those marketing options. I feel like it's my business how I market my cattle - mine and nobody else's. The fewer laws we have relating to marketing, the better I like it.

In an ideal capitalistic system, I'm with you on the fewer laws. I may be wrong, but I'll go so far as to say that an ideal capitalistic system is self regulating. What I mean by 'ideal capitalistic system' is one with many options/venders. I don't feel we can ignore the market power of the few when an industry/market concentrates to only a few options/venders. The point I want to make is that if we, as producers, don't support all our options,we loss them...then where is the flexibility you/we cherish?

There will always be options. Anytime money is left on the table, or an industry weeds out too many competitors and starts taking too much money a new interest will start to take some of that money.

How much per head is a fair price to make? Is it the same in every sector?

 

[Econ101]

But for me, I want the flexibility to choose between ALL of those marketing options. I feel like it's my business how I market my cattle - mine and nobody else's. The fewer laws we have relating to marketing, the better I like it.

In an ideal capitalistic system, I'm with you on the fewer laws. I may be wrong, but I'll go so far as to say that an ideal capitalistic system is self regulating. What I mean by 'ideal capitalistic system' is one with many options/venders. I don't feel we can ignore the market power of the few when an industry/market concentrates to only a few options/venders. The point I want to make is that if we, as producers, don't support all our options,we loss them...then where is the flexibility you/we cherish?

There will always be options. Anytime money is left on the table, or an industry weeds out too many competitors and starts taking too much money a new interest will start to take some of that money.

How much per head is a fair price to make? Is it the same in every sector?

Jason, you have noted how it should be. Unfortunately the reality is not the idealistic way you portray.

In Mexico, where corruption is the way the game is played, those with the money keep control, no matter what the profits. Competitors are squashed. Just look at the concrete business in Mexico.

More and more, big moneyed interests circumvent your idealistic portrayal. You have no further to look than the poultry industry and the post that Sandhusker made on VI in the poultry industry.

Hogs were next, and now they are working on the cattle business.

You have only to open your eyes. The proof is out there.

 

[rider]

We all have our own idealism. It may not play out they way we intend, but idealism gives us hope. When we take hope away, what is left? And who is to say that my idealism or your idealism is wrong? It is of own creation.

 

[Econ101]

But for me, I want the flexibility to choose between ALL of those marketing options. I feel like it's my business how I market my cattle - mine and nobody else's. The fewer laws we have relating to marketing, the better I like it.

In an ideal capitalistic system, I'm with you on the fewer laws. I may be wrong, but I'll go so far as to say that an ideal capitalistic system is self regulating. What I mean by 'ideal capitalistic system' is one with many options/venders. I don't feel we can ignore the market power of the few when an industry/market concentrates to only a few options/venders. The point I want to make is that if we, as producers, don't support all our options,we loss them...then where is the flexibility you/we cherish?

Fewer laws is exactly what we need. Unfortunately, the courts don't enforce the ones on the books as intended so they need more guidance. It is their incompetence that requires new laws and new regulations.

Judges are appointed by the political elite. Approval of these judges comes through the Judiciary committee in the Senate, which have been shown to have members who are paid off by industry. Senator John Cornyn received over $100,000.00 (minimum) as reported by Public Citizen.

Sept. 13, 2005

As Senate Nears Vote on Agriculture Agency's Appropriations, Industry Cash Speaks Louder than Consumers' Voices

New Analysis Shows How Millions of Dollars Spent in Lobbying and Elections Has Helped Thwart Key Food Labeling Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the Senate prepares to vote this week on its version of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) budget, a new Public Citizen investigation released today illustrates how big agribusiness used millions of dollars in lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions, and a network of Washington insiders with close connections to the Bush administration and Congress, to thwart a consumer-friendly provision mandating country-of-origin labeling, popularly known as COOL.

Mandatory country-of-origin labeling would require beef, pork, lamb, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, fish, and peanuts to be labeled with where they were raised, grown or produced. Although the 2002 Farm Bill stipulated that the new program be implemented by September 2004, mandatory COOL has been postponed by Congress – where lawmakers are under intense pressure from the meat and grocery industries – for two years. In June, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to once again delay COOL's implementation for meat until 2007. Industry is strongly lobbying the Senate to either delay the funding for the USDA to work on COOL or turn it into a "voluntary" program.

"If you ask consumers, they'll tell you they want COOL, but it's apparent that Congress isn't listening. We've already watched members of the House dismiss their constituents by voting to delay this important consumer act. We urge the Senate not to follow in their footsteps," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's food program. "Consumers deserve to know where their meat is produced, and in light of all the problems our food system faces on a daily basis, COOL would serve as a vital precautionary measure."

Public Citizen analyzed donations from 19 companies and trade associations, each of which has announced opposition to mandatory country-of-origin labeling and has registered to lobby against COOL. They have contributed a total of $12.6 million to candidates for Congress and in soft money to the Republican and Democratic parties since 2000.

These companies have focused their giving on 64 members of Congress who have sponsored a bill to replace the mandatory country-of-origin requirement with a voluntary one, which is considerably weaker and does not empower consumers with the right to know where their food is from. Instead, it offers industry a way to hide critical information from the public. These 64 members, accounting for only 12 percent of Congress, have received 28 percent of contributions to candidates from the COOL foes.

Among the investigation's other findings:

* Twenty-one companies and trade organizations that outspokenly oppose the mandatory COOL law and have registered to lobby against it have spent a total of $29.2 million to lobby Congress and the executive branch on COOL and other issues from 2000 to 2004. These groups are some of the biggest names in agribusiness and include the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), Wal-Mart, Cargill, Tyson Foods, the American Meat Institute and the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
* These companies have marshaled an army of at least 160 lobbyists to oppose COOL. Among these lobbyists, at least 45 – or 28 percent – previously held positions in the federal government, many working on key agriculture issues such as COOL.
* Key lobbyists from the meat industry who fought COOL before it became law later were hired in strategic positions at the USDA, which was charged with crafting the regulations to implement COOL. Under their watch the agency estimated an initial one-year implementation cost of up to $3.9 billion, with few benefits, which served to bolster critic's views that COOL would be too expensive to warrant implementing.
* Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is the lead sponsor of the Senate version of the voluntary COOL bill. He has received $38,250 from the COOL opponents, all of which was contributed during his inaugural 2002 Senate race. COOL foes may have relied on a special connection to lasso their man. Among the lobbyists employed by the NCBA to work on the COOL issue in the second half of 2004 was Colin Woodall. Until April of that year, Woodall worked for Cornyn on agriculture appropriations issues. The voluntary COOL bill Cornyn introduced in June 2005 appears to match the NCBA's demands.
* Well-placed Reps. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) have been the two ringleaders in the effort to delay, and ultimately derail, COOL. And they have been well supported by agribusiness interests. Bonilla has received more than $167,000 from COOL opponents in the last three election cycles, making him their top beneficiary. As the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, he has twice delayed the start date for the COOL program. Bonilla's delaying tactics have enabled Cornyn and Goodlatte, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, to build support for their legislation, which would make the mandatory labeling program voluntary – at least for meat products – effectively killing it. Goodlatte's actions have greatly pleased industry, which has given him more than $103,000 in the last three election cycles, ranking him No. 3 in the amount of contributions COOL opponents gave to sponsors of the voluntary COOL legislation.

One revealing example of the influence of money in politics lies in Arkansas, where lawmakers strongly supported country-of-origin labels for all food because of the state's catfish industry, which has suffered in recent years by an influx of a catfish-like species from Vietnam. But once the delegation got its way on fish labels, support disappeared for broader COOL legislation. All six members of the delegation are co-sponsoring a bill that would end the requirement for COOL labeling of meat. They received $338,500 from COOL foes in the last three election cycles. Also, among sponsors of the voluntary COOL legislation, the Arkansas delegation accounted for the only three Democrats among the top 30 recipients of contributions from COOL opponents: Sen. Blanche Lincoln and Reps. Marion Berry and Mike Ross.

"It is easy to understand how money works against consumers' interests in politics by considering that the COOL legislation made it through Congress with a strong show of support a few years ago, only to be corralled by a strong industry lobbying effort capped by a cornucopia of campaign cash," said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch.

To read the report, Tabled Labels: Consumers Eat Blind While Congress Feasts on Campaign Cash, click here.

###

It is very interesting to me that this article can not be easily "googled". I tried googling MCOOL and Cornyn and did not get the article. I also tried googling Public Citizen and Cornyn and did not get the article.

Information that is hid by google, or not easily accessed is a big concern to me when it comes to access to information not flattering to a political candidate.

The saying "you are what you eat" comes to mind. When what we are able to have access to is limited, our menu becomes limited and the truth is hidden. This has been the MO for politicians---using corporate money to hide the truth and "buy" the spin.

I had to go to the Public Citizen site to get the article. Notice also that even part of the argument with Agman on Ranchers was on the results list by google, but not the article itself.

 

[rider]

Fewer laws is exactly what we need. Unfortunately, the courts don't enforce the ones on the books as intended so they need more guidance. It is their incompetence that requires new laws and new regulations.

Judges are appointed by the political elite. Approval of these judges comes through the Judiciary committee in the Senate, which have been shown to have members who are paid off by industry. Senator John Cornyn received over $100,000.00 (minimum) as reported by Public Citizen.

Sept. 13, 2005

As Senate Nears Vote on Agriculture Agency's Appropriations, Industry Cash Speaks Louder than Consumers' Voices

New Analysis Shows How Millions of Dollars Spent in Lobbying and Elections Has Helped Thwart Key Food Labeling Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the Senate prepares to vote this week on its version of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) budget, a new Public Citizen investigation released today illustrates how big agribusiness used millions of dollars in lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions, and a network of Washington insiders with close connections to the Bush administration and Congress, to thwart a consumer-friendly provision mandating country-of-origin labeling, popularly known as COOL.

Mandatory country-of-origin labeling would require beef, pork, lamb, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, fish, and peanuts to be labeled with where they were raised, grown or produced. Although the 2002 Farm Bill stipulated that the new program be implemented by September 2004, mandatory COOL has been postponed by Congress – where lawmakers are under intense pressure from the meat and grocery industries – for two years. In June, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to once again delay COOL's implementation for meat until 2007. Industry is strongly lobbying the Senate to either delay the funding for the USDA to work on COOL or turn it into a "voluntary" program.

"If you ask consumers, they'll tell you they want COOL, but it's apparent that Congress isn't listening. We've already watched members of the House dismiss their constituents by voting to delay this important consumer act. We urge the Senate not to follow in their footsteps," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's food program. "Consumers deserve to know where their meat is produced, and in light of all the problems our food system faces on a daily basis, COOL would serve as a vital precautionary measure."

Public Citizen analyzed donations from 19 companies and trade associations, each of which has announced opposition to mandatory country-of-origin labeling and has registered to lobby against COOL. They have contributed a total of $12.6 million to candidates for Congress and in soft money to the Republican and Democratic parties since 2000.

These companies have focused their giving on 64 members of Congress who have sponsored a bill to replace the mandatory country-of-origin requirement with a voluntary one, which is considerably weaker and does not empower consumers with the right to know where their food is from. Instead, it offers industry a way to hide critical information from the public. These 64 members, accounting for only 12 percent of Congress, have received 28 percent of contributions to candidates from the COOL foes.

Among the investigation's other findings:

* Twenty-one companies and trade organizations that outspokenly oppose the mandatory COOL law and have registered to lobby against it have spent a total of $29.2 million to lobby Congress and the executive branch on COOL and other issues from 2000 to 2004. These groups are some of the biggest names in agribusiness and include the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), Wal-Mart, Cargill, Tyson Foods, the American Meat Institute and the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
* These companies have marshaled an army of at least 160 lobbyists to oppose COOL. Among these lobbyists, at least 45 – or 28 percent – previously held positions in the federal government, many working on key agriculture issues such as COOL.
* Key lobbyists from the meat industry who fought COOL before it became law later were hired in strategic positions at the USDA, which was charged with crafting the regulations to implement COOL. Under their watch the agency estimated an initial one-year implementation cost of up to $3.9 billion, with few benefits, which served to bolster critic's views that COOL would be too expensive to warrant implementing.
* Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is the lead sponsor of the Senate version of the voluntary COOL bill. He has received $38,250 from the COOL opponents, all of which was contributed during his inaugural 2002 Senate race. COOL foes may have relied on a special connection to lasso their man. Among the lobbyists employed by the NCBA to work on the COOL issue in the second half of 2004 was Colin Woodall. Until April of that year, Woodall worked for Cornyn on agriculture appropriations issues. The voluntary COOL bill Cornyn introduced in June 2005 appears to match the NCBA's demands.
* Well-placed Reps. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) have been the two ringleaders in the effort to delay, and ultimately derail, COOL. And they have been well supported by agribusiness interests. Bonilla has received more than $167,000 from COOL opponents in the last three election cycles, making him their top beneficiary. As the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, he has twice delayed the start date for the COOL program. Bonilla's delaying tactics have enabled Cornyn and Goodlatte, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, to build support for their legislation, which would make the mandatory labeling program voluntary – at least for meat products – effectively killing it. Goodlatte's actions have greatly pleased industry, which has given him more than $103,000 in the last three election cycles, ranking him No. 3 in the amount of contributions COOL opponents gave to sponsors of the voluntary COOL legislation.

One revealing example of the influence of money in politics lies in Arkansas, where lawmakers strongly supported country-of-origin labels for all food because of the state's catfish industry, which has suffered in recent years by an influx of a catfish-like species from Vietnam. But once the delegation got its way on fish labels, support disappeared for broader COOL legislation. All six members of the delegation are co-sponsoring a bill that would end the requirement for COOL labeling of meat. They received $338,500 from COOL foes in the last three election cycles. Also, among sponsors of the voluntary COOL legislation, the Arkansas delegation accounted for the only three Democrats among the top 30 recipients of contributions from COOL opponents: Sen. Blanche Lincoln and Reps. Marion Berry and Mike Ross.

"It is easy to understand how money works against consumers' interests in politics by considering that the COOL legislation made it through Congress with a strong show of support a few years ago, only to be corralled by a strong industry lobbying effort capped by a cornucopia of campaign cash," said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch.

To read the report, Tabled Labels: Consumers Eat Blind While Congress Feasts on Campaign Cash, click here.

###

It is very interesting to me that this article can not be easily "googled". I tried googling MCOOL and Cornyn and did not get the article. I also tried googling Public Citizen and Cornyn and did not get the article.

Information that is hid by google, or not easily accessed is a big concern to me when it comes to access to information not flattering to a political candidate.

The saying "you are what you eat" comes to mind. When what we are able to have access to is limited, our menu becomes limited and the truth is hidden. This has been the MO for politicians---using corporate money to hide the truth and "buy" the spin.

I had to go to the Public Citizen site to get the article. Notice also that even part of the argument with Agman on Ranchers was on the results list by google, but not the article itself.[/quote]

First, you obviously don't understand how search engines work. Just because you post an article on the Web doesn't mean that search engines will find it. By the way, have you tried a mega-search engine?

Second, you are using my quote from a few weeks ago... "You are what you eat." However, I don't see how that relates to the lack of an article being posted. I REALLY doubt this is an intentional blocking of the web address. What we put in, is what we get out. If you studied logic you would know that the negation of that statement is not always true. That is, your reference is to "What we don't put out, we don't get out."

Clarity is always of the essence.

 

[Econ101]

rider, I do know how search engines work. I searched for the same terms some time ago and did get the intended results. The fact is that google searches are "for sale". The company will allow you to put your results on top by paying money. What I found interesting is that the resulting article wasn't even any of the results----not even on the third page.

If you would like a private lesson, or want to give me one on this topic, I would be glad to oblige. I could also show you how to use the quote function on this site.

As far as the "you are what you eat" saying, it is common, and not owned by you. Thinking about the meaning in the context I used it was for those whose mental capacity may allow them to greater depths. I would be glad to give you a private lesson on that as well.

 

[rider]

No private lessons needed.